tv Charlie Rose PBS March 3, 2012 12:00am-1:00am PST
>> rose: welcome to our program. tonight, a conversation with the president of israel, shimon peres. >> iran is not just a danger or a problem for israel. if iran will win, we may all of us lose the middle east and lose the oil supply. it's a very serious problem and the group that is running iran today doesn't have any respect for law, for humanity or for reason. you know, i remember it was said of all the options in life, moral corruption is the most dangerous one. >> rose: moral corruption? >> yes. and i do believe that iran is today the center of moral corruption of all time.
they kill people, they support terror, the they are highly ambitious. so it's a problem not just for israel. israel is just part of it. and i think the world understands it. i think under president obama we have the highest level of corporation and security and if you ask me, at the highest respect for president obama. he, too, has to face difficult situations. but i think he's a great president and i think he's a great friend. >> rose: of israel? >> of israel, yes. and i say it without hesitations. i don't want to participate in your elections. (laughter) but that's not the reason. i think the relations between america and israel are best and most crucial issue of security
is the best we ever had. >> rose: the best you've ever had? >> yes, i mean it calls for. i want to underrate the relation with clinton and bush or others. >> rose: rabin and clinton had a special relationship. >> but it went up to a new level and i think president obama did it full heartedly and responsibly and i have the highest and respect for it. >> rose: president shimon peres for the hour. tonight.
captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: shimon peres is the president of israel in a political career spanning over 60 years he had been prime minister twice, he has served in 12 cabinets. in 1994 he received the nobel peace prize along with yitzhak
rabin and yasser arafat for their work on the oslo accords. he recently co-wrote a book on the founding father of israel called ben-gurion, a political life. i spoke with him at the 92nd street y last evening and here is that conversation. >> i'm deeply honored to be with you. mr. president, thank you very much on behalf of everybody here. you will be speaking in washington and tell me where you think israel is today. we'll talk about iran, the arab spring and the relationship with the united states. but the state of israel at this moment in history >> the state is in a good shape but in a poor region. (laughter) it's a world of uncertainty there was an uprise in the arab world and there was a profound
change in the entire world. what i mean by it is the two most important issues of government, economy and security is not in the hands of the government anymore but it became global. and globealty affects every government. so we are close. but we don't know what the questions are. it's a global situation without a global government. sol we are part of it. but i want to tell you when you have a crisis, that's my experience and you think it's the end of the world. that's not true. it's the end of the crisis. not the end of the world. >> rose: the crisis of the moment also these do with iran.
where do you view iran's capacity to have a nuclear weapon? >> i think there are other and i think the decision should be taken by the world community, not only israel. iran is not just a danger or a problem for israel. if iran will win we may all of us lose the middle east and lose the oil supply. it's a very serious problem and the group that is running iran today doesn't have any respect for law, for humanity or for reason. you know, i remember a lecturer who said of all corruptions in life, more corruption is the most dangerous one. >> rose: moral corruption? >> yes. and i do believe that iran is today the center of moral corruption of all time. they kill people they support
terror, they are highly ambitious, so it's a problem not just for israel. that's just part of it. and i think the leaders of the world understand it, they take it seriously. >> rose: but it is said that you are in "ha'aretz" and other places... you're opposed to an attack is that an accurate reflection of where you stand today? >> look, that's... let's see what is agreed and what is not. i think all of us agree that better to start with political and economic sanctions. nobody wants to start this fire. but all the people say all options are on the table. why? because if iran will think it's just an economic pressure they say we should overcome it so you must understand it's more
serious than that. i do not believe you have to go into any details but those two assumptions, one that they are a real danger of humanity, which is accepted by most of the people of our time. president obama at the head of it. and out of it we want to do it economically and politically, without bloodshed. but if you want respond... won't respond to our demand, it's not the end of our... i don't think you have to go more than that. >> rose: defense minister ehud olmert strongly criticized president perez on thursday after al "ha'aretz" reported... the report revealed that perez is expected to tell u.s. president obama he does not believe israel should attack nearby the near future. "with all due respect at various office holders from the past and present, the rumor that there is
only one government that has also reached the united states barack said sarcastically. in the end there's an elected israeli government that makes the decisions and that is its responsibility. >> i don't deny it. it's okay with me. (laughter) >> rose: at age there comes at some point... >> i went through my life with critics and criticism. it's part of the life and i don't think it's the end of the world. >> rose: the prime minister is coming as well to washington. >> yes. >> rose: does he come beyond a message and a speech but with a message for the president of the united states? i think he's coming in order clarify with the president what should be the next step, how can we have a clear position which is is quite clear, by the way
now i believe that president obama is a great president. i believe he's serious. you're not playing here politics and i'm sure they will reach an agreement. >> what kind of agreement will they reach? >> the only outline, mainly, that's to the maximum in the way of economic and political pressure and keep all the option on the table. bot of them said it. >> rose: do that you believe the iranian government will act rationally. that if, in fact, sanctions are having an effect than they will say it's not worth the price of having a nuclear capability to endure the sanctions or do you believe that they are irrational and therefore sanctions will not have the kind of impact you intend them to have? >> well, to describe the iranian leadership is very precarious. (laughter)
>> rose: so if they're irrational, that's more scary, isn't it? >> i think that they should be frightened because unless they will their existence of the government because they have ambitions basically they want to become a hegemon of the middle east it's religious and imperialistic at the same time and if you think that endangers them, and god knows what it would make them feel but there are elements of irrationality in their behavior it's clear. if the president of iran says that the maddy who passed away a long time ago, in my judgment it's not irrational. and if he's being called a supreme leader, it's a situation. so i wouldn't measure them without with our measurements because that's a different sort
of phenomena. and i would be very suspicious. >> how serious do you see the rift between president ahmadinejad and the supreme leader combny. >> there is such a rift. the depth of it i don't know and nobody knows. even if all the information if you cannot measure seriously is what is taking place behind closed doors. but they are extremely cold to their own people. they hang people without trial many of the positions are in prison. i mean, why should ahmadinejad go say to the great man... the president of israel but if they are great in their own ways i wouldn't describe one of them as perfectly rational.
but they have two agency, one hezbollah in lebanon, the hamas in gaza. so they're a real danger. and since there's no world government to control it, you must have a coalition of the responsible leaders to face them and stop them look what happened here. one of the most safest places on the earth, the twin towers. look at the amount of effort, of money, of soldiers the united states has had to stop them in afghanistan and iraq. it's endless. an uncontrolled group is a real problem. it's not a matter of numbers. if you're put in a basket,
(inaudible) and we have to take it very seriously and try to do it if we can in a non-violent way. >> some in the united states have begun to argue that iran with a nuclear weapon or nuclear capability can be contained. in the same way that the soviet union was contained. in the same way that north korea this... >> i wouldn't go for it so simply because sanctions in several locations were successful. maybe the best example is south africa. south africa... sanctions stopped them. another example is maybe ukraine. they, too, had the bomb and the united states came in and they
suggesteded financial support. so it's not one. nobody can say with certainty if we do that that will happen. but if you try, the least dangerous way; namely, economic and political sanctions, it's right. >> help us understand the burden of being prime minister of israel in a country like iran having a nuclear weapon. >> sleepless nights, to begin with. you know, i have the privilege of being not too young so i can't remember the early days of israel... i can remember the early days of israel. well, you know, israel was a doubt, not a country. all the odds were against us. we are 650,000 jewish people facing 40
million. they upset seven armys with planes and tanks and guns. we didn't have any army. we didn't have any gun. we didn't have any plane. i mean, at that time i thought, my god, how are we going to take it? since then we went through six wars in six decades and we couldn't lose one of them. would we lose one of them, we wouldn't exist. so sleepless nights is part of the responsibility of any prime minister and the prime minister has good reasons not to sleep at night. it's a very complicated issue. >> rose: but no israeli prime minister would like it be part of his own history or her history that iran, who has threatened to wipe israel off the face of the earth on your
watch as prime minister iran achieved the ability to do that. >> but it can be done in different ways. there's not just one way and we saw examples like it. you know, everything is an illusion to think the prime minister or a president are running history, are running reality. they're also being affected by it. and limit limits and opportunities unexpected. so i think the prime minister should weigh very carefully all the options and i think that's what he is trying to do. >> rose: should the prime minister inform the president of the united states if an attack is about to begun or should he acknowledge it after after the fact? >> you know, this is an ride is we would never give publicly. (applause)
>> rose: and i will always ask. (laughter) where do you think the israeli i/palestinian negotiations, if you may, stand today. s where the hope for some peace process? >> i think it's not lost. from time to time if president abbas, which is the head of the palestinian authority, and prime minister fay i can't tell and actually we are in agreement or did agree already much more than people, really there are some gaps. muslims, by the way, are more psychological. let's have a short look what's happened. first of all, we agreed about the nature of the solution. namely, two states a jewish state, israel, an arab state,
palestine. they have to live side by side and both of us agree about it and most of the leaders in the world agree about it. then the palestinians are begun to build their country like we did. ben-gurion built the state before it was recognized. before we had borders. there are two basic issues which is very hard to agree upon and that is security issues which have had the lines for the palestinian state. but from my experience i think we can do it eventually and we shall do it. i think that's what we should do right away because when you look at the whole situation in the arab world and iran a piece between the palestinians and us is a great donation and an
opportunistic move that may be one of the things that the people in iran will not like. it's an excuse for their extremesy. i think we have to distinguish between two things. one is to open negotiation and the other is to negotiate. to negotiate may take time. the open the negotiations can be done and i hope it will happen. >> rose: but what's necessary for negotiations to begin? >> a little less headlines. and a little bit taking a risk because i believe the risk of not having negotiations is greater than the risk of... >> rose: so what risks should the prime minister take? >> the prime minister knows exactly what the risk is because to talk really seriously about
this, to negotiate these two parties, don't underrate the difficult to convince your own people because your own people say yes, we are for piece, yes we are ready to pay the price, but why are you paying so much? why are you making so many concessions in this great difficulty because how can you measure if it's smart. there's no way to do so. so you must be ahead of the people and if you are too much ahead you may lose their support. and it's a matter of balancing and it's a matter of the coalition but i think we are nearer, as i have said, than the perception about (inaudible) i
think basically most of the israelis and most of the palestinians know there is no better option than to make piece and no better time that the nearer state. (inaudible) so if you can't solve this one, it's so important generally, symbolically, and particularly because, don't forget, most arabs are against iranians. they want to have a muslim government, not an arab government. so the perception is a little bit loose in comparison with the detailed situation. and i believe i have a fair amount of knowledge to say that
i think it may happen soon. that's my belief, that's my desire. i think this is also the desire of the american president, many other leaders in the world. >> rose: characterize what you think is a reasonable and acceptable agreement for palestinians and israelis. >> for me... for us, i should say, the major problem is how to guarantee security. so we cannot return to the '67 lines because the new set up requires changing the lines of '67. and i think on that we can also agree. >> rose: change it here and
change it there. >> and i think this is... they have to have a piece of land upon which they can build their own state. i think for the palestinians they are ready to be independent if they feel inferior it's because we're more high tech than them. today the driving force is not the size of the land but the level of scientific and technological development now let me say something which i really believe. the real problem in the middle east is not politics the real problem in the middle east is poverty. the population may be five times but without economic development and the problem is tremendous, tremendous.
now israel it can show how to overcome poverty. we have the same land. there's a piece of land. we don't have water, you know? jordan is a very famous river but richer in history, not in water. it's not water for irrigation. we have two lakes, one dead the other is dying. (laughter) so we have a flourishing agriculture our yield is ten times the agriculture in the world. and it's an open secret that the chinese, the indians are coming to see what we are doing seems there is a lack of food, lack of energy, lack of water. we started with adam and eve, now seven billion of them.
>> rose: but you say with peaceful co-existence israel could share that agricultural prowess with the palestinian people so they would rise up. >> yes. the real conflict, the real change is with young and old. the young generation, many of them went through universities. facebook and internet. they can see what's happening all over the world, not unlike the old generation. they say how is that that young people in the world, we have freedom, we have future, why then not us? >> rose: for israel to be secure, do you agree with the prime minister that there has to be a secure presence on the
jordan river? i think we have to have a security arrangement. maybe some variations like for example... not that i think different about it but we can have a combination of the jordanian, palestinian, israeli process because we face the same danger. but if hamas would take over, it's a danger it's a danger for us because hamas is a danger. >> rose: is it a danger if hamas and fatah come together and solve their differences and agree that it's better to be together than separate in gaza and ramallah? >> well, will it be the hamas way or the fatah way?
they're opposing so how can they come together? they cannot because fatah is for peace and hamas is against peace. >> rose: but if hamas would renounce some of their-- which they have said they would not do. >> if they would stop being what they are it's a different story. (laughter) there's also the argument that is recognized a ticking clock. how do you see that? that will mean a two state solution is slipping away. i don't think >> i don't think so, there's an alternative. because one state should have the same conflict forever. no matter what the numbers are. >> rose: would you say a one-state solution like that, a one state solution is unacceptable for the future of
israel? it's not where israel wants to be. it does not want to live as an occupying power. >> it's not acceptable to israel not acceptable to the palestinians. /mean, what is the idea of israel? the jewish people were disperse they want one place where we can really depend our lives. if you'll give it up we naublg. >> rose: would you accept a palestinian east jerusalem capital? >> tell me what does it mean you have an international government in the world. what are we talking? israel will have the nature of religious capital.
(inaudible) and an temple mount. all told is two square kilometers. those with the two square kilometers where three religions were born. in these two square kilometers they have hundreds. and many extremes. it's not just one region. if the catholic church would like to take over a church, it would be a war. so we have to be careful. we have to co-habitate. we have to live together. right now people are praying and the prayers go straight to heaven without the intervention of the government. (laughter) so we can't pray. >> rose: occupation is not something that a country wants to do
>> right, we don't want. under no circumstances. >> rose: and an occupation assault it is dignity of the palestinian as well. >> it's enough for us that we cannot take it. the jewish people weren't born to rule another people. it's formed from the very first day against slaves and masters. we don't want to be ruled, we don't want to rule others. >> rose: is israel today a different place than the place than that you and david ben-gurion and ibn and so many people in israel dreamed it would be? >> we are different, the world is different. we have different advantages, problems as well and i think what we have to do... i think the jewish people need a new agenda. >> an agenda? >> yes, and i would base this agenda on three principles: number one, the moral core.
or should i say specifically the ten commandments which is accepted, by the way, by the (inaudible) this is the oldest document on earth. it's 3,500 years old and since then you have many laws but none of them forced us to change a single world. that's number one. number two is the request for knowledge. the jewish people are all the same in search and they say the philosophy is the greatest contribution of the jewish people to the rest of the world i would say dissatisfaction. (laughter) a good jew cannot be satisfied. (laughter) because we think we should do better, we can do better, we can question things.
if us peace is a tenant, a principle, we're not opportunist and i think those three principle cans unite the jewish people, can be accepted by civilization, can be what we call to have a better world and we don't like status quo. we're not happy with status quo. and i think what we are doing is to try really to improve we cannot just say that we live just for ourselves, we'd like to live in a world where everybody has the right opportunity, not just us. so what does it mean? there's no superior man. >> rose: off likud party in control and you have a prime minister who's the member of the likud party and a foreign minute
stwhor's part of a coalition government. is the prime minister restricted in terms of what he can do? and how much he can achieve with respect to peace? because of his own political survival? >> whatever the prime minister is doing he has to remember that he's the head of a coalition, he cannot escape any question. he has to have constantly the agreement of his coalition. by the way the president of the united states has to have the consent of the congress. that's the difference between democracy and the other systems. so it's an ongoing exchange of views, an ongoing attempt to create majorities, three majorities. so it's natural we need the consent of the coalition. >> rose: there are a lot of people who will say to me the prime minister wants to do more
than he is doing because he is restrained by his coalition. do you believe that? >> yes. it's natural. >> rose: tell me what the prime minister would do if he did not have the coalition he has? >> rose: would he will better off with a different co-sfligs >> if he can do it, yes, i believe so. but you cannot change people, you can change situations. so first of all let's not go in personal (inaudible). i believe that every prime minister that can make his coalition for piece would do it it is our tradition, it's the best solution we can have the way is complicated and the prime minister has to calculate what is the size of risk he can take without losing the coalition and it's and a half federal my eyes
but i believe in modern towns a leader should not try to be on the top but try to be ahead. and and try to convince the people because today you have to convince the people almost every morning either by stones in the streets or by polls in democracy it's an ongoing dialogue. >> rose: do you believe that the prime minister would accept the outlines of the peace negotiated between olmert and abbas? would he accept that today, do you think? >> the fact is he didn't accept. he think there is must be some more from that point to the other point. (inaudible) but i think the differences are not so large, actually the two-state solution was supported in a very strange way by the three last presidents
of the united states: clinton, bush, and obama. and by the three prime ministers of israel. parallel. there are some issues... well, there are differences, not tremendous ones, in my judgment, and that's why i say and continue to say it's doable. >> rose: some people are under the assumption that the relationship between prime minister netanyahu and president obama is not good. on the other hand, israeli ambassador and others have said the level of security cooperation has never been better. >> it's right. i think under president obama we have the highest level of cooperation and security. and if you ask me i have the highest respect for president obama. it, too, these face difficult
situations outside and inside. but i think he's a great president and a great friend. >> rose: of israel? >> of israel, yes. and i say without hesitations. i don't want to participate in your elections. (laughter) but that's not the reason to say the truth. i think the relations between america and israel are best and the most crucial issue of security is the best we ever had. >> rose: the best you ever had? >> yes, it calls for... i don't want to underrate the relations with clinton or bush or others. >> rose: rabin and clinton had a special relationship. >> but it went up to a new level but i think president obama did it full heartedly and responsibly and i have the highest respect and thanks for it. (applause)
>> rose: what is the impact of the arab spring as we see it unfolding? >> well, there are some surprise first of all, the uprise brought down dictators. today it's very difficult to be a dictator in the middle east. it's a risky job, you know? (laughter) some of them lose their life. >> rose: events are not running in your favor. >> that's right. secondly i am very much surprised, positively, at the courage of the syrian people. it's not simple to go and demonstrate day in and day out when your own leader, your own tyrant, is shooting at you, at your children, my god. and another surprise, for the first time israel and arab countries voted together against
tierney in an arab country. that's also a great change. and then the emergence of a new generation if i would have to advise a country that would ask me to whom to deal with in the middle east with the muslim brothers, with that, i would say don't look at the parties. look at the germination. they are really tired of tierney and they know that israel is not their problem... tyranny. and they know israel is not their problem. it has nothing to do with israel and i think it's a transitional period because winning the elections is one thing and escaping poverty is another thing. so winning the elections without solving the problem is nothing. that price will continue and i believe we are in a transitional period. >> rose: poverty and dignity, too, and freedom. >> yes.
freedom. freedom and food goes together, you know? in my judgment you cannot separate. the best producer of food are the democracies. because you have so many people who feel free, who compete, who try to do our best and energy and water are today the greatest problem and the thought problem is in a global situation without a global government. it's that they attach so much hope in the research of the brain because maybe the brain will enable us to govern ourselves. you know, i ask myself when did it start? when a mirror was introduced. before people couldn't comb their hair, couldn't cut their nails. give a mirror, everybody washes every morning. (laughter)
so we know about the outside look, would we know about the mechanism that activates us from inside? we walk around with our brain. our brain enables us to understand our surroundings without understanding ourselves. the minute we begin to understand ourselves i'm sure most people will do what they did when the mirror arrived, to make a better choice. to be more moderate. to be less extreme. but i think it will be the most sensational decade. i think (inaudible) it's a tremendous artificial intelligence and if this will happen, i'm sure it will happen, the whole life it will be changed changed.
there won't be unemployment in a strange way, i'll tell you why. because people will devote more time for study and less time for work. the more you will know, the less you have to work. so we'll invest in education, more teachers, more students, more time for learning. because the greatest potential are brains. >> rose: you paint a picture that everybody believes in and longs for but that's not the reality we have today as long as we cannot have parties coming together. suppose your friend yitzhak rabin had lived. do you think we would have peace by now? it's... i mean, that he was killed was a tragedy for us.
and really affected the process. i think if he would be alive it would be more advanced. i can't speak in absolute terms because it's hard. the new situation is not the creation of the prime minister the new era of world, the new iran, these are new problems. >> rose: would it have been different if eric sharon who understood the demographic argument and clearly was in... had an evolving point of view if he had not suffered the illness he does? >> well, i'm tempted to make it diplomatic but i'll make something very clear. sharon surprised me, too. i never thought sharon would be the man that would leave gaza willingly so i got a surprise. ask me what other surprises sharon could do, i don't know. (laughter) but i know he's capable to
surprise. i think it's a complex and fascinating fapl that and nobody can say for sure about yourself or somebody else. clearly you can see people who can make decisions and ben-gurion charges people not in the stories. >> rose: not on what might have been. >> the only way to take the decisions he took, take the thing he is did because it's not what to be but what to do. >> rose: i have a book you have written, a series of conversations you made with david landow called ben-gurion, a political life. it's gotten very good reviews in new york. tell me about ben-gurion, this
man you knew and was a political friend of. >> i'll tell you something surprising that people wouldn't believe. it was extremely naive. >> rose: naive? >> yes. he didn't have cynicism in him. the greatest mind i ever meat. he was brilliant. >> rose: greatest mind you ever met? >> yes unbelievable memory. he could tell you about a conversation he had four years ago word by word. he was curious. an avid reader, a great decision maker. but he wasn't cynical. >> rose: not cynical? >> not cynic. he really believed it. i remember once we heard a conversation the goal of ben-gurion and the world told him mr. ... prime minister, what
are your dreams and he became white like a young boy? and he told them the truth. he was a man of vision and truth and principles. he wouldn't give up. he wouldn't be afraid to be alone. as a matter of fact on many occasions he was alone. (inaudible) most people didn't want to be without him. even the majority didn't want to let him go. so every time he probably resigned ten or 20 times. (laughter) then he got the majority back. >> rose: so you, you, in this long life that you continue to flourish in, what has been... brought you the great "essence" of satisfaction and where is the
deepest regret? >> the greatest thing that makes me satisfied is to serve the people. it's the greatest pleasure. i don't think the rule is a pleasure. i think to serve is a pleasure. i was 60 years in the administration of israel. i'm asking what took most of my time. the answer is (inaudible) as prime minister i hardly held the world yes. i hardly hear the world no and i discovered that if people feel that, they respond gladly if you give an order.
if you ask them to volunteer you would be surprised how many of them will volunteer for everything. so the greatest satisfaction is to scatter the good will and trust. i dishgs you think you were a good politician? >> i am not sure. (laughter) i think i was true to my mission and i don't know. there is a difference between being elected and accomplish things which will not popular. that's the right dilemma. you know when i was in the administration i was the most controversial figure in israel. i don't know when i was more satisfied. >> why do you think that is that now you're president you're more popular. the argument was made that even though you were defense minister
israel seemed to pay more attention to former military heroes lycra bean or... >> i don't think it's serious. i mean, i respect very much psychology but i'm very weak on it. i don't know. so i'm not impressed by it. and maybe i took a little bit step too much ahead and i pay for it. but i'll tell you something else in israel in order to be elected you would depend else. but then a change of terror started in israel.
and the one thing in life never complain and explain. >> rose: that's a quote from henry ford, never complain, never explain. >> well, he didn't do do too badly i understand. (laughter) >> but there are people here in the this audience who feel strongly that the position and the that palestinians have to have a state to have their own dignity. not to have to go through roadblocks not to have to have the things that you want for citizens of israel. >> that's my wish, too. we are not there because we want to be there but because we were attacked. we didn't go to occupy anybody. we didn't have the slightest intention to do so.
we were attacked, we fought and we changed the map. >> rose: has it changed israel, though? that you still are there? and having to... >> i don't know, really. i mean even we live in the same land we are separated communities and every community feels they are better probably than the other on both sides but no matter i still believe-- i can't say everybody but there was a serious majority in israel that wants to put an end to the present situation and understand that it cannot be done by force, it must be done by agreement. with full respect to the other sides, palestinians and i wish they will be at the same level that we are and they can do it. they're not superior people. superiority is to be democratic.
superiority in that case is to employ science and technology. and they can do it. unfortunately they are split by the hamas by the religious, by the iranians. they are victims, not of israel necessarily but i feel like them. i would like to see every palestinian entering freedom and equality and dignity. it doesn't give me any pleasure to see the palestinians suffer: very far from it. and believe me when i read about the children in syria that are being killed i feel like a father feels about every child who wants it i i know the people say we're optimistic, maybe, but there's license to be optimistic too. israel achieved things nobody
thought we should achieve and the agriculture, the high tech. you know, the fact that we are only t only country in the middle east that speaks the original language, hebrew. no other country speak it is language. i never believed or thought there would be more hebrew speaking people than danish speaking people so this is... this too is a great achievement in my eye eyes. >> let me ask you a question that i think a lot of people ask of you, anyone who has achieved the remarkable number of positions you have held and positions you hold today has seen the birth of a country. ha who has labored for the survival of a country. who has been a part of the history of a country. what do you want your legacy to be? >> it's hard for me to think